SHETHNA, J. - (1.) ORDINARILY this Court does not interfere in a contract matter in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the parties are always relegated to the competent Civil Court for redressal of their grievances. However, later on the law was expanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the public institutions are there and where serious allegations of malafide are alleged in contract matters it is held that the Courts may interfere in such type of cases. However, this case is an eye opener that in ordinary circumstance in absence of malafide this Court should not entertain such contractual matters and it should relegate the parties to the Civil Court.
(2.) LAW is also equally well settled that the persons who do not come before the Court with clean hands are not entitled for discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner has prayed in this petition that respondent Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation be restrained from taking any proceeding whatsoever consequent to the notice inviting tender dated 10. 9. 97 and it may also be directed to hand over the Project to the petitioner as per the contract underweigh. It is also prayed in this petition that for any reason during the pendency of this petition contract is given to somebodyelse the same be declared to be invalid and be quashed and appropriate action be taken in this regard in this very proceedings. Learned counsel Shri M. R. Singhvi appearing for the respondent Corporation raised several preliminary objections about the maintainability of this petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Mr. Singhvi also submitted that the petitioner with his conduct has disentitled himself from any relief by hands of this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution because he has not come with clean hands and at times he changed his stand according to situation which was not at all proper on his part. He also submitted that the petitioner had suitable alternative efficacious remedy of appeal of civil suit before the competent Civil Court and this being a contract matter between the parties this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioner. He also submitted that for non-joinder of important parties no relief can be granted to the petitioner. He also submitted that after submitting a letter to the respondent Corporation he has no right to maintain this petition because in his impugned letter his only request was to pay 20 per cent interest on the amount.
(3.) BEFORE appreciating the preliminary objections raised by learned counsel Shri Singhvi for the respondent Corporation few facts of this case are required to be stated which are as under:- The respondent Corporation is a public undertaking of State of Rajasthan which invited tenders for transfer of mining leases of the Flourspar Development Project (in short `the Project') situated in District Dungarpur by a tender notice published in the news-paper at Anx. 1. The petitioner by his letter dt. 11. 6. 1997 shown interest of the Dungarpur Unit of the Project for purchasing the same and requested the Corporation to supply a copy of notice inviting tender. The same was responded to by fax dt. 16/18. 6. 1997 and the petitioner was called to come on 20. 6. 1997 for negotiations for the purpose of finalisation of the proposal at Jaipur with Rs. 50,000/-deposit towards `keenness money' on or before 30. 6. 1997 (Anx. 2 ). The petitioner deposited Rs. 50,000/-on 20. 6. 1997. Negotiations between the parties were held initially on 20. 6. 1997 but somehow or the other he could not remain present on 4. 7. 1997, therefore, by letter dt. 3. 7. 1997 he requested for some other date. However, by letter dt. 5/7. 7. 1997 he was asked by the respondent Corporation to revise his offer by 14. 7. 1997 and sent it to the Corporation in a sealed cover (Anx. 3 ). The same was done on 12. 7. 1997 by the petitioner (Anx. 4 ). He gave his revised offer on 25. 7. 1997 (Anx. 6 ). Thereafter, by a letter dt. 5. 8. 1997 (Anx. 7) the petitioner was asked to submit his final bid which was responded by the petitioner by letter dt. 11. 8. 1997 (Anx. 8 ). At this stage, I would like to reproduce the contents of para (h) which is as under:- ....Vernacular Text Ommited.... ;